Flores, Antonio R.

Keller, P.J., filed a concurring opinion.

Appellant moved to quash the indictment on the ground that it did not sufficiently specify the act or acts relied upon to constitute recklessness in compliance with Article 21.15. The trial court denied the motion, and Appellant was ultimately convicted. On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that Appellant was correct that the indictment failed to comply with Article 21.15, but the court of appeals also concluded that Appellant was not harmed and affirmed the conviction. Both parties have filed petitions for discretionary review: Appellant contends…